There's an article over at CNET about this by Declan McCullagh. He's usually a pretty fair minded reporter.

Side Note: It has also drawn some attention over at PoliceOne.com (same article as above, but with a few LE comments).

What is interesting is that the East Palo Alto Police Chief has been reported as "suggesting" that the screen-shot taken of the facebook page had been "altered to make Tuason look bad."

That "suggestion" doesn't sit well with "Oaklander" who took the screen-shot. Chief Estelle may be in for a surprise.

The basic problem with all of this is that Rod Tuason posts (well at least he used to - LOL) at CalGuns as .45 Shooter. He even replied to the main thread with a half-hearted apology and denied nothing in the screen-shot (his identity has been confirmed). The master thread at CalGuns is here, but be forewarned, it is currently standing at 900+ posts.

OH.... You mean heinous civil rights violation? Sorta like "proning out" a 12 year old girl in a sun dress on her way to school?

Same as "proning out" any citizen who hasn't given probable cause for such behavior.

Hogdogs,
My comment was generic. If you post comments, blogs or articles to the web that are inflammatory, expect your next potential employer to find them. Depending on the nature of the job, even a perfect record can be offset by the "insight" into your personal life.

For example; if you makes posts supporting the casual use of pot; have posts supporting, say NAMBLA or White Supremists, etc. etc. -- then your chances of landing many jobs can be greatly diminished.

Bill, That was the point of my post.... I have many skeletons in my closet I have not nor will not share on the WWW.idiotpress.com. Tee-rust me... I could spout off at the face for 5 minutes and ruin my life! And I would be banned from most of the forums I frequent.
Brent

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," he wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus ... was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

Because it appears the officer was advocating illegal and dangerous behavior, so maybe not protected?

If the state does not want people to open carry than they should not make it damn near impossible to get a concealed carry permit. Someone like that officer should have nothing to do with law enforcement.

Im a CA resident, proud gun owner, and a passionate supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. That said.....first, one must realize that while California has some strict gun control policies, they are in no way the worst, and I can tolerate most of them.(The 10-day waiting period is excessive, but an annoyance more than anything.) I've been around a lot of gun shops in NorCal, and had many conversations with gun owners. One thing that we all agree on for the most part is that Open Carrying is ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS YOU CAN DO IN CA. The general consensus is: "Hey, we support your right to carry, but you look like a bunch of morons gathering at the local Starbucks packing unloaded guns. Stop embarrassing the rest of us." Now, again, dont get me wrong. I'm very pro-gun, and I support the PRINCIPLE of the O.C. crowd. Just not their actions. You may only carry an unloaded gun. That in it itself pretty much renders the weapon useless for defense. Secondly, with this latest movement, many of these folks are carrying just to prove a point. I believe this does a great disservice to responsible gun owners in that it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the general public. Even if they respect your gun rights, they might not agree with them, and they dont want it crammed down their throats. For example, I dont agree with their following, but I respect the rights of Jehovahs Witnesses to be free to follow their religion. I just get extremely irritated when they're pounding on my door, shoving it down my throat. I picture the O.C. crowd in this sort of scenario. My thought is that one of three things should happen. A) Ban open carry altogether. I know that this is like surrendering one of our rights, but if its between no open carry and only being able to carry unloaded, for the sake of everybody involved, I would rather see it banned totally. B) A somewhat better choice (depending on your opinion of O.C. in general) would be to allow loaded O.C.. Now, of course this wouldnt change anyones opinion from the anti-gun side, but at this with this option, your gun still maintains its utility. Therefore, you actually have a reason to carry it, and dont look like such a tool carrying around an empty gun. C) Change CA from a "may-issue" state to a "shall-issue" state. California's CCW system is the one gun control aspect of this state that makes my blood start to boil. For those not privy, CA is similar to most states, except that in addition to the normal process, you must provide "good cause" and the final decision is left up to the discretion (but in most cases, the OPINION), of your local law enforcement. So pretty much....you aint gettin' one here. Oh, you can apply and donate the fees to the state, but in the end they keep your money, and you go home with nothing. A lot of those folks O.C. because its nearly impossible to obtain a CCW. Have a reasonable CCW program, and watch the O.C. problem disappear. I would think that this alone would solve problems not just for those wanting to carry, but for law enforcement officers as well that have to respond to the "man-with-gun" calls all the time. Just my opinion.........

OC is not a problem. Anyone who can legally posses a gun should be allowed to carry it openly or concealed. The next least objectionable is to have shall issue concealed permits but still unregulated open carry. Suggesting that open carry be banned because some people open carry in protest of loaded open carry bans and the extreme difficultly of getting concealed permits is the wrong wrong direction to proceed.

You forgot that CA also requires that you be of "good moral character" in order to apply for a CCW. Between that and "good cause," shall we say that in any discretionary matter, you can/will be found wanting?

Nice screed though.

I have to ask, regardless of how you feel about UOC (Unloaded Open Carry), does that make what the officer say any less threatening? Are you really comfortable with an Officer saying he will prone an UOC'er and look for a "furtive" movement to justify murdering an innocent person?

Are you actually suggesting that those who UOC are asking for this type of behavior from LE? That the victim is is at fault?

Unloaded open carry does sound pretty dumb to me. Why not just strap on some cordless screwdrivers.....less the battery packs?

FWIW, I can understand the reason to require concealed carry as opposed to open carry in "shall issue" states. I figure it this way - individual States should be permitted to declare that either Open Carry, Concealed Carry, or both are permitted, but they should not dissalow both Open and Concealed Carry.

I like the Ga. hand gun permit... It is not a concealed permit... you are permitted to carry concealed or open. Thus you do not have to worry about "printing" or inadvertently flashing the gun when a shirt rides up etc.
Brent

I spend a lot of time in Georgia, and have yet to see anyone open carry. Not saying that you can't, just saying that even if you can, folks don't tend to do this. I like the option to open/conceal carry too. Just don't see myself doing much open carry. Seems to me that it could invite thugs to challenge you.

skans, Yes i agree with all of that... what piqued (is that a french word) my interest was the possibility of that negating the risk of being charged with a crime, or in this case "proned out" when the wind blows the ol' parrot and flower riddled Hawaiian shirt up in the parking lot of the local eatery.
Brent

I like the hybrid OC/CCW for just the reason Dogs mention. stuff happens and it would be Barbara Striesand is a law abiding CCW holder got jackpoted because a shirt rode up or a jacket flared out.

HOLEY COW! I actually agree with Wagonman on something other than the XD.

I wish the places with open carry allowed in their law wouldn't make it borderline unsafe and silly-looking by using requirements for the OC'd firearm to be unloaded. That is just OCD, Open Carry Dumb (my opinion, no offense to those who choose to carry this way).

Seeing this thread did cause me pause the other night when i noticed the liquor store clerk (in MS) was wearing a tactical leg holster with a firearm in it, but hey, i would want one too at 5 minutes until close on a Saturday night given the location/vocation.

Dern tootin'!
I think this is the only board I ever been on where the 2 of us can have such 180 degree out beliefs and opinions on so many individual issues in America and still maintain a civil discussion or debate. And I am glad to have found TFL. One day we will have to shake hands in person and see if we can tip a glass and talk in person! I bet the both of us have plenty to share from both sides of the street!

Thanks Rich L. for the opportunity for so many different walks of life to share opinions in a civil manner... Thanks to the mods that see that we do so!
Brent

Al, I don't sing nuttin'! My wife won't let me after that "Stairway to Heaven" karaoke (hey she made me sing sumthin and that was the longest song I could torture her with) rendition 19 years ago!
Brent

...first, one must realize that while California has some strict gun control policies, they are in no way the worst, and I can tolerate most of them.(The 10-day waiting period is excessive, but an annoyance more than anything.) I've been around a lot of gun shops in NorCal, and had many conversations with gun owners. One thing that we all agree on for the most part is that Open Carrying is ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS YOU CAN DO IN CA. The general consensus is: "Hey, we support your right to carry, but you look like a bunch of morons gathering at the local Starbucks packing unloaded guns. Stop embarrassing the rest of us." Now, again, dont get me wrong. I'm very pro-gun, and I support the PRINCIPLE of the O.C. crowd. Just not their actions.

California's CCW permit system is a joke. Permits are tightly controlled by CLEOs to use as "rewards" for contributions, friendly gov't staffers, some reporters and well-connected types. The state laws prohibit carrying a loaded weapon in any incorporated city or where shooting is prohibited by law. In rural counties (less than 200K population) CLEOs may issue an open carry permit, but it is valid only in that those smaller rural counties.

Oddly enough, an unloaded firearm worn openly in a belt holster is not illegal. One subsection of the law [12031(e)] allows police to inspect the gun to ensure it is, in fact, unloaded. Of course this is fraught with peril because officers are trained that the public display of any gun is a potential felony threat to their safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skans

FWIW, I can understand the reason to require concealed carry as opposed to open carry in "shall issue" states. I figure it this way - individual States should be permitted to declare that either Open Carry, Concealed Carry, or both are permitted, but they should not dissalow both Open and Concealed Carry

.

And this is precisely the point of the O.C. crowd. The law permits it and it is legal. Thus, the whole point is to exercise what little rights we have in CA and remain within the law. But California LEOs are not prepared for this, despite a number of bulletins from agencies around the state.

One questions whether 12031(e) is even constitutional. If the person is openly carrying an unloaded gun, it's a legal activity for which police cannot detain you. It's about like police stopping you because you're walking down the street openly carrying a 12-pack of Budweiser.

The legal aspects are that the officer may currently remove and check the weapon and if he finds that it is unloaded, return it to the person and cease the detention. They are not allowed to record the serial number and "run it", nor demand your ID and "check you out" before letting you go. Unfortunately LAPD and several other cities haven't gotten the word and are routinely violating people's rights with long detainments.

The OC movement is simply attempting to exercise their rights under the law. They are also safeguarding themselves by recording encounters to documente the abuses by LE officers. Even though something is legal, of police are abusive of their authority and can create an oppressive, fearful attitude, people will lose their rights.

One other fun thing about California carry laws. I spoke with an asst. D.A. a few years ago. I asked him to define what constitutes an "unconcealed" or "flashed" gun when one has a CCW permit. He hedged a bit and finally said that if any portion of the gun or holster is visible, it violates the terms of the CCW. Yet, when asked what makes it a "concealed" weapon if one has a gun on their belt, he said that anything covering part of the gun or holster to attempt to make it "less visible".

In other words, if the bottom 1/4 of your holster is visible, as a CCW holder, it's illegal because it is NOT concealed. But if you open carry and cover the upper 1/4, leaving 6" of holster exposed, it's illegal because it IS concealed.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.